Castle clearly voted FOR preserving the ability for the Supreme Court to review the Pledge of Allegiance for is constitutionality (roll call 384, one of 17 Republicans to do so). Fortunately, it was defeated. Then Castle went along with the majority in roll call vote 385 to pass the Pledge Protection Act. Apparently, the Senate never finalized action for it did not become law.
Click on vote 384 was on the Watts Amendment (H. Amdt 1187) which reads:
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION: Amendment sought to preserve the authority of the United States Supreme Court to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in 4 U.S.C. section 4, or its recitation. AMENDMENT PURPOSE: An amendment numbered 1 printed in House Report 109-577 to preserve the authority of the United States Supreme Court to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in 4 U.S.C. section 4, or its recitation. STATUS:
- 7/19/2006 1:33pm:
- Amendment (A001) offered by Mr. Watt. (consideration: CR H5415-5416, H5432-5433; text: CR H5415)
- 7/19/2006 4:22pm:
- On agreeing to the Watt amendment (A001) Failed by recorded vote: 183 - 241 (Roll no. 384).
I guess you could say Castle voted against it before he voted for it. My guess is he would prefer to see "Under God" removed.
Castle clearly voted FOR preserving the ability for the Supreme Court to review the Pledge of Allegiance for is constitutionality (roll call 384, one of 17 Republicans to do so). Fortunately, it was defeated. Then Castle went along with the majority in roll call vote 385 to pass the Pledge Protection Act. Apparently, the Senate never finalized action for it did not become law. H.AMDT.1187 (A001) Amends: H.R.2389 Sponsor: Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] (offered 7/19/2006) AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION: Amendment sought to preserve the authority of the United States Supreme Court to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in 4 U.S.C. section 4, or its recitation. AMENDMENT PURPOSE: An amendment numbered 1 printed in House Report 109-577 to preserve the authority of the United States Supreme Court to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in 4 U.S.C. section 4, or its recitation. This is the kind of lying that people don't like to see in politics. It's amateurish and it says a lot about O'Donnell since her people are throwing this stuff around. Castle supported H.R. 2028 back in 2004 without hesitation. He voted FOR H.R. 2389 even after the amendment failed. While he did vote for the Watt Amendment, this isn't "voting to allow activist judges to strip under God from the pledge." Some people believe that it is Unconstitutional to remove ALL Federal Court jurisdiction over an issue. (I think they are wrong, but it is a legitimate debate.) Others believe that all Courts except for the Supreme Court should be stripped of their jurisdiction. Perhaps Castle falls into this group. In any case, the assertions by the O'Donnell camp are a flat out lie, and are indicative of why people might be hesitant to support her.
I'm not suggesting that Castle is perfect. I don't think he is by a long shot. If he were in a State that was just a bit more Conservative, I would never suggest voting for him. However, he is in Delaware. One of the most liberal States in the Union. O'Donnell will lose that Senate Seat, and we don't need a Harry Reid or Schmuck Schumer as Majority Leader in January.